A380: And Then There Were Three

Business Week's Carol Matlack points out that there are three incompatible CAD systems being used by Airbus: CATIA 4, CATIA 5, and PTC.

Other points of interest:

* Airbus began purchasing Dassault software in 2000: Airbus resisted moving to Dassault, some insiders say, out of rivalry with Dassault Aviation, a French maker of fighter planes and executive jets that spun off from the Dassault Systèmes software business.

* Airbus avoided digital mockup software until last year: Airbus also might have avoided the wiring debacle if its engineers had been using a full digital mockup of the A380, a three-dimensional computer-generated model incorporating all the plane's specifications and subsequent modifications.

* Airbus blames the software, not the managers: In announcing the latest A380 delays, Airbus said, "The root cause of the problem is that the 3D digital mockup, which facilitates the design of the electrical harnesses' installation, was implemented late and that the people working on it were in their learning curve."

Comments

[Herve Kabla]

These statements are far from reflecting the truth. The truth is that Airbus, unlike its competitor Boeing, did not deployed the true 3D mockup a la Dassault Systemes: ENOVIA PLM + CATIA. Instead of that, they are using a mix of poorly compatible CAD and PDM software. Do you really imagine that such a project could fly a mix of Windchill and CATIA? The sooner EADS moves to CV5 + ENOVIA, the more chance they'll have to limit the damages... Boeing and Dassault Aviation (F7X) made the right choice at the right time. Unfortunately for them, EADS managers did not.

"Dassault Aviation, a French maker of fighter planes and executive jets that spun off from the Dassault Systèmes software business."

It's the other way round. They were making aircraft long before CAD.

[dprawel]

Survey after survey and countless dialogs all reveal the same thing: engineers and manufacturers know that poor CAD interoperability causes huge amounts of waste in manufacturing worldwide. The Airbus problems now being reported in the media perfectly illustrate both the problem and the impact.

Interoperability is not just one problem, but instead represents the intersection of several related issues. The interoperability problems I most often hear about from engineers are not technical in nature. Yes, there are technical issues to be solved, but there are non-technical solutions that companies can immediately address.

First and foremost, CAD experts must help management understand the nature of interoperability problems, and the huge cost of ignoring these issues. Airbus has done us all a favor in this regard. If a $6 billion expected loss in operating profit doesn’t cause executives to stand up and listen, or a $9 billion loss in market cap this year, nothing will. And just this morning Airbus CEO Christian Streiff resigned. Related? Maybe.

Management must give more than lip service to the people who are trying to deal with the issues created by poor interoperability. These unsung heroes are always unrecognized and usually have other jobs; they try to manage and solve interoperability problems out of necessity and dedication.

I do some more ranting if you're interested on my 3D Ubiquity blog www.longviewadvisors.com/blog.